The sudden, rushed campaign to insert Stanley Fischer straight from his post leading Israel's central bank into the number two spot at the Federal Reserve has allowed little time for research into the appointee's controversial achievements or for informed public debate about his record. That may be the point.
http://www.IRmep.org/fischer_aipac.htm
During his long career working indirectly and directly on behalf of Israel, Fischer has:
1. Overseen the transformation of U.S. aid to Israel from repayable loans to outright grants.
2. Pushed unilateral trade concessions that benefit only Israel, but not America.
3. Exempted Israel from the very same conditions and controls he imposed on Mexico, Argentina, Russia and Brazil.
4. Become an Israeli citizen in order to impose additional sanctions on Iran from Israel's central bank, despite their growing harm to American jobs and exports.
5. Benefitted from a long series of deceptive AIPAC PR campaigns about his record.
The Fed policies that discourage the employment of non-citizens as Fed bank examiners are based on valid considerations that should apply to Fischer. While AIPAC may view his rushed insertion into the Fed as a "wedge" toward increased flows of openly dual Israeli nationals working in top American government and quasi-governmental posts, American voters should immediately contact their senators and oppose Fischer's appointment with the same energy they exhibited in their opposition to the rushed AIPAC campaign to attack Syria based on deceptive premises.
Please feel free to circulate and post IRmep's copyright-free analysis of Fischer's AIPAC-powered career "AIPAC's Fed Candidate Stanley Fsicher on Warpath Against Iran: Dual-Citizen nominee's lifetime beneift to Israel comes at a heavy cost to America"
http://www.IRmep.org/fischer_aipac.htm
————————–
Remember that Fischer is a dual national. pl
A foreign citizen who ran a foreign government’s central bank is now to run the Fed? That’s not a Christmas present I can to receive.
The price of the ticket for Yellen’s appointment to the Fed, Fischer was the #2 man at IMF but wielded more power than the director. I’m sure that is the dynamic that his supporters wish to replicate. I doubt that will be the case.
Any government position held by someone with dual citizenship – Israel, UK, Canada, whatever – how does that happen?
But then, this is the alternate universe inside the beltway – where 2+2 = 99 and “cut” actually means an increase.
But, beyond that:
Merry Christmas Colonel Lang
One more reason why we should have a transparent and thorough auditing of the federal reserve . Senator Rand Paul is right we need to audit the fed .Perhaps Sen Paul could place a hold on Fischer ‘s appointment until such time as this fed audit is complete.
I’m speechless!!!
Read on the anti-war website the other
day BB is going to predicate further talks
or negotiations with the PA on
the release of Pollard. What a travesty
if this happens.
I don’t understand why we continue to allow dual nationals to hold high government positions. Is he the only person qualified to do the job?
So much for Obama for nominating him. Another (unrelated) news was that “Netanyahu ‘to demand release of spy in return for peace talks concessions'”. [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/24/israel-demand-release-spy-jonathan-pollard-peace-talks%5D.
Sorry Col., off topic but it looks like Mikhail Kalashnikov has died: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/24/world/europe/mikhail-kalashnikov-creator-of-soviet-era-ak-47-weapon-is-dead-at-age-94.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0
Worthy of note, I think.
So basically any country that does not do Israels bidding will get its finances trashed.
With Fischer lined up for the Fed #2, and Institutionalized Zionism now out to both isolate and crush the American Studies Association by targeting individuals as well as the association itself, what will be the response of the American people?
http://mondoweiss.net/2013/12/against-extremist-delegitimization.html
I am speechless!!! I cannot believe this position would be given to a dual-national regardless of his wonderful abilities. Where goest America or is it Israelica?
@S. Henning
We believe in the miraculous.
We educate and elevate people who despise us and fear us.
And you ask whither? America goest where its newest owners wisheth and by definition no one on this blog has any real say in the direction or the cost.
America took in the Frankfurt School communists, allowed the renaming of the remnants of Trotsky’s followers to neo-conservative, and placed the sworn enemies of Christianity, Individualism and Capitalism in the seats of real power in infotainment and the judiciary.
Those voted into office cannot wait to sell themselves to the KSA and Aipac for a few shekels and another two or six years sucking the public teat and the foreign spigots.
Ask not whither it goeth ask instead how soon can you goeth another direction.
Having two passports is becoming common among our elite, as well as many other recent immigrants here and in other countries.
This is a trend that has gained acceptance without much thought in the US. That was a mistake, I think.
While there may be some good reasons to be the US equivalent of a green card holder in one country and a citizen of another, I don’t see how one person can have two citizenships, which indicates two primary loyalties. Well — because they can’t; there can only be one #1.
When I was a kid in school, we were taught people had to give up other citizenship to gain ours. We should probably return to that.
OT: Another row over defense tech transfer
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175404#.Ur2Q5rTy3WU
http://www.israeldefense.com/?CategoryID=483&ArticleID=2648
Happy New Year NR
With ‘friends & allies’ like Israel who needs enemies.
May Pollard rot in jail amen .
Off Topic – but could one of the learned commenters here do a piece on our Asian Pacific pivot and the ongoing brouhaha about the PRC’s territorial claims ? As a lay person am I right to be concerned about China’s military catching up or surpassing our own in high technology ? Wasn’t the WW Two Japanese Zero for example a surprise ? Makes me wonder exactly how much of our defense technology Israel has sold to the PRC ( So maybe its not so much off topic ?)
Neil Richardson,
Thanks for those links, and for alerting me to these cans of worms about Israeli technology transfer to China.
I do not know whether you say a recent piece by Gideon Rachman, the chief foreign affairs columnist of the FT, entitled ‘Israel’s public paranoia masks private complacency.’
(See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d4208ae0-641f-11e3-98e2-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz2ohLVsZgl )
Having noted warnings from the U.S. and others that Israeli’s approach to the Palestinians will ultimately be suicidal, Rachman goes on to write as follows:
‘Mr Netanyahu claims that he understands all these dangers – and has publicly endorsed the two-state solution pushed so hard by Mr Kerry. It seems entirely likely, however, that the Israeli prime minister is simply humouring his enthusiastic American visitor – and assuming that the Kerry peace effort will run into the sand, as so many have done before.’
He goes on to produce an interesting explanation for this Israeli complacency:
‘A collapse in the peace process could lead to an intensification of the sanctions drive in Europe. But the Israelis have been buoyed by the discovery that rising economic powers seem relatively unmoved by the plight of the Palestinians. One Israeli official notes, with pleasure, that in six hours of talks with the Chinese leadership, “they spent roughly 10 seconds on the Palestinians”, while revealing “an unquenchable thirst for Israeli technology”. The Israelis say that Latin Americans also tend to be more interested in economics and technology than the political issues that preoccupy the Europeans and Americans.’
One interesting question is how far the ‘unquenchable third for Israeli technology’ is related to the possibility that this provides a route by which the Chinese can overcome their lag in critical areas of military technology, as compared with the United States. In any case, the political implications to the Israeli version of a ‘pivot to Asia’ – and away from the United States and Europe – quite clearly need thinking through.
Also interesting is the fact that Rachman has quite unambiguously suggested that the Israeli leadership see Americans as idiots who can be played for suckers. People in the U.K. increasingly see this clearly. It is not clear to me how far people in the U.S. do.
What European country and/or company did Israel sell these things to? Did that country and/or company surprise Israel as much as us by on-selling these things to China? Or was that the plan between Israel, this European country/company, and China all along?
First and foremost remember that banks domestic and foreign own and manage the FED! Second, remember the FED has almost NO staff or capability to understanding or policing ICO’s [International Criminal Orgs] But FED positions are often subject to FBI background investigations so suggest all dual nationals have their entire FBI background investigations released for public inspection prior to confirmation or appointment!
Former Congressman Ron Paul suggested in public [alleged?] that the FED bailed out domestic and foreign banks and foreign Central Banks in the financial crisis to the range of $27 Trillion. Open source info indicates a range of $12-$17 Trillion. Whatever the amount no one outside the FED knows for sure. What we do know is none were average American debtors but only their free-range creditors.
Bernie Madoff was caught by an investigative journalist not a bank regulator! He invested heavily in Israel’s bonds. So did and do Russian criminal elements!
Since selling our highest technology to China makes China more likely to attack or otherwise subjugate its neighbors sooner, the question really does arise . . . is Israel the only country which would sell our best technology ( or even their own best technology) to China? That would be theoretically easier to contain than if several or many European countries/companies would separately also like to sell such technology to China even if sourced from somewhere
other than Israel.
Since we have formal alliances with several East and Southeast Asian countries, perhaps we should prevent any sales of technology which they also see as elevating the China threat to themselves ( which elevates it to us too since we have formal alliances with them).
Mr. Habakkuk:
“One interesting question is how far the ‘unquenchable third for Israeli technology’ is related to the possibility that this provides a route by which the Chinese can overcome their lag in critical areas of military technology, as compared with the United States. ”
Since 1989, there has been an arms embargo on China among EU states. However, this isn’t anything remotely close to what NATO had during the Cold War when CoCom had been in place against the Warsaw Pact. Since each EU member state could interpret what “arms embargo” means, dual-use technology isn’t as closely regulated as it had been under CoCom. I do think though it’ll end by 2020 if not much sooner. As for PRC, Israel and EU are certainly targets for technology acquisition as there clearly is a gap despite recent attempts by the usual sources in DC to portray PLAN and PLAAF as far more capable than they are at this point. In the context of defense cuts, interservice rivalry has no limits in the US.
However, given that Israel is one of the first scheduled to receive F-35s in 2015 I wonder if this latest row will have a wider repercussion. Since Japan, Australia and probably ROK will be deploying F-35s in the next two decades, it’s a matter of credibility in the region for the United States that we don’t compromise critical technologies in this manner. IIRC Feith and Wolfowitz had removed Israel from the list of F-35 security cooperation participants in 2004. They reinstated Israel only after the Israelis cancelled the contract with PRC to upgrade Harpy drones.
“In any case, the political implications to the Israeli version of a ‘pivot to Asia’ – and away from the United States and Europe – quite clearly need thinking through.”
As I mentioned earlier I wonder what this might mean for some of the neoconservatives. I was struck by how Feith and Wolfowitz had reacted earlier. It’s one thing to look the other way on human rights abuses in Israel as they would have little resonance for Americans in general. Yet it would be a very risky matter if IMI were seen as sending vital military technologies to China while being subsidized by US taxpayers. I remember the congressional backlash against Toshiba when it was discovered that it had sold machinery to the Soviet Union that allowed their navy to substantially reduce the hydrodynamic noise of their submarines (IIRC there was another Norwegian firm involved as well). There was a congressional resolution calling for the ban of Toshiba products in the US. And this was in 1987 when Japan had been a critical partner in soft-landing the dollar (e.g., the Plaza Accord).
“Also interesting is the fact that Rachman has quite unambiguously suggested that the Israeli leadership see Americans as idiots who can be played for suckers. People in the U.K. increasingly see this clearly. It is not clear to me how far people in the U.S. do.”
I wonder about this question as well. Frankly I’m struck by how the discourse on Israel has changed over the last decade or so. Peter Beinart’s piece in NYRB would not have been published 10 or 15 yrs ago IMHO. During the Republican primary season in 2012, Saturday Night Live had lampooned Rick Santorum by having the actor who portrayed the candidate say that he’d start a war with Iran as a favor to Israel. Stuff like this would not have made the cut in the writers’ room before 2002. Comparing Israel to Aparteid South Africa would have been unthinkable as well IMO. Yet there have been Jewish Americans raising this question in recent years. Perhaps I’m being naive and I’d be the first to admit that I’m not that knowledgeable about MENA. Yet I still wonder if there’s been a shift in sentiment among Jewish Americans (especially among the younger generation who don’t identify with the state of Israel nearly as much as previous generations did).
DC:
“What European country and/or company did Israel sell these things to? Did that country and/or company surprise Israel as much as us by on-selling these things to China? Or was that the plan between Israel, this European country/company, and China all along?”
At this point I’ve not come across any mention of the conduit. The Israelis have been burned a few times over defense transfers to China in the past. I’m sure it had been planned from the beginning. Let’s see if they have to pay a price for this. Feith had thrown a fit over the upgrade of Harpy drones. The current administration’s “Pacific pivot” means that this pattern of behavior could have significant policy implications today.
AE:
“Am I right to be concerned about China’s military catching up or surpassing our own in high technology ? Wasn’t the WW Two Japanese Zero for example a surprise ? Makes me wonder exactly how much of our defense technology Israel has sold to the PRC.”
A happy new year to you and your family as well.
First, I want to point out what Gen. Dempsey said last year:
http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1698
“I’ve told many people that we really have to avoid Thucydides’ trap. Now, that’s a historical analogy. Thucydides said that it was the fear of a rising Sparta on the part of the Athenians that made war inevitable. So there’s huge history here about the challenge that the existing superpower has in dealing with an emerging power. I think we ought to aspire to be the superpower that breaks the paradigm.”
IMHO a general war between the United States and PRC would lead to economic devastation in both countries. Yet, the United States as a maritime nation has to prepare for the worst case scenario. As many would agree intentions could change overnight while capabilities do not. While I am aware of the security dilemma and its implications, in the case of US-PRC relations the stakes are so high that we cannot afford to be unprepared given the number of possible flashpoints in the region involving some of the most economically dynamic states who could rapidly increase their military capabilities.
Since the end of the Gulf War in 1991 (the pace quickened after the Third Taiwan Strait Crisis) PRC has adopted what is called Anti-Access/Area-Denial strategy (A2/AD) using a vast array of networked anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles. Their intent was to deter the 7th Fleet from operating close to their shores. The flip side of that strategy as well as PRC’s increasing naval capabilities is that they could potentially control various maritime chokepoints in NE Asia as well as Malacca. Freedom of navigation is one of the core security interests of the United States. In the past two years AirSea Battle has received a lot of attention in MSM. It is a direct response to PRC’s A2/AD. And PRC has rightly perceived this development to be a serious threat. However, they’ve been bluffing for a long time and should’ve expected to be called on it sooner or later.
As for a potential technological gap, I would refrain from thinking about it in that manner. Rather it might be more useful to think of capabilities as it would encompass different strengths and weaknesses in organization, doctrine, manpower etc.(i.e., how good are your people in adapting and adjusting). Simply at the moment PLAN and PLAAF cannot prevail against USN/USAF. And they would find out very quickly what it means to be on the other side of a blockade as PRC is heavily dependent on maritime trade. However, a general war escalating from say Senkaku would increase the likelihood of economic devastation in the US as the first order of event would be a run on USD.
Projecting the increase in PRC’s capabilities for the next two decades is a hard task. They’ve certainly improved their naval and air capabilities over the past two decades. However, I’m more concerned about the de facto professionalization of their forces. However MSM seems more focused on trinkets like DF-21s with help from those with vested interests inside the Beltway. Regarding the Zero-sen, indeed it was an eye-opening adversary for both USN and USAAF in 1942. It was faster, had greater rate of climb and could turn much tighter at corner speed. Yet men like Thach and Chennault developed tactics to even the odds very quickly. (e.g. the Thach Weave) And once the Japanese had expended their initial group of very highly trained fighter pilots after 1942, it became a one big turkey shoot for fighter pilots of USN, USMC and USAAF in the remaining years of the war. Human capital is as important as hardware in terms of military readiness. We will find out soon enough if the Navy and USAF have retained the right sort of people after RIF.
People talk about asymmetric warfare as if it’s some sort of a photograph (i.e., static capabilities). Obviously some of these people have vested interest in the next budget battle. However, there are possible solutions to deal with air defense networks and anti-ship missiles defense lines. Even the “dreaded” DF-21s need target acquisition and would also be vulnerable to ECM. And the states that have maritime disputes would presumably deploy their own ASMs and SAMs that would massively complicate PLAN and PLAAF’s tactical and operational problems. And ROK and Japan have already committed to a signficant increase in their submarine forces. And PRC has been taking one diplomatic misstep after another in the region for the past two years.
Neil Richardson,
Thanks for the links and commentary above. It is always refreshing to hear clear strategic thinking – from commenters and the sources they link to.
There is something suicidal in AIPAC’ flaunting the Israel-firsters. What is the best way to ignite in the US citizenry a general animosity towards Israel than by showing who is the daddy ruling the US finances? Shoveling Fisher (whose main loyalty has been to Israel) down the US taxpayers throat and abusing the US Constitution by nudging the US Congress to cede its war power to Israel smells of treason:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/12/27/congress-must-not-cede-its-war-power-to-israel/
Anna-Marina
The Israelis are remarkably short sighted and IMO have become addicted to the notion of themselves as a besieged fortress living on the edge. There is also the evident belief that the goyim collectively are more than a little dense and can be pushed, pl
NR
Thank you for giving us a good overview of the challenges in the Pacific as our pivot continues away from MENA entanglements.
And it still would appear that we are aiming to be ‘the honest broker ‘ in the Pacific – The United States also condemned the recent visit by Japanese Prime Minister Abe to the Yasukuni war shrine by statement from the US Embassy in Tokyo .
Colonel Lang,
In other words, the Israelis are ‘silly-clever’.
Another element needs to be added into the picture. Certainly, the current Israeli leadership, and much of Israeli society, are contemptuous of the ‘goyim.’ But they are also only quite secondarily concerned about the dilemmas faced by Jews living in the West who have only partially embraced the Zionist vision, and have no desire to ‘make aliyah.’
This is almost as much the case with Ari Shavit as it is with Netanyahu. There are, belatedly, some signs that the obvious truth is beginning to penetrate into the minds of mainstream figures in the American Jewish intelligentsia. Although Thomas Friedman and Jeffrey Goldberg were happy to swallow Shavit’s snake-oil, David Remnick was more sceptical.
If American Jews face up to what Israeli Zionism has become – and my optimism that this must inevitably happen has not so far been vindicated – then they may finally grasp the truth which has been embraced by Max Blumenthal and Philip Weiss. It should, surely, be glaringly obvious that if there was a ‘promised land’ for Eastern European Jews, fleeing from Russian and German persecution, it was in the United States.
AE:
“And it still would appear that we are aiming to be ‘the honest broker ‘ in the Pacific – The United States also condemned the recent visit by Japanese Prime Minister Abe to the Yasukuni war shrine by statement from the US Embassy in Tokyo . ”
As for being an honest broker, I’d note two things. First, the United States has no claim on any of the ongoing maritime disputes other than freedom of navigation and overflight. Second, the United States still has not ratified the UNCLOS (However we recognize it as customary international law).
The first point indeed could help us as a broker especially since the Navy has been the enforcer of Pax Americana (The Royal Navy had done it for a century earlier during Pax Britannica). However, the second point undermines our ability to do so. It’s really frustrating to see people like Jim Inhofe block the ratification at every step because they fear some crazy notion of black UN helicopters hovering over their homes. The Navy has advocated the ratification since 1995. And the Chinese have pushed back against efforts of the Philippines, Vietnam and others to pursue arbitration by pointing out that the US still hasn’t ratified the convention treaty.
As for Abe, we’ll probably have to ride out his term in office however long that might be. For every misstep the Chinese have taken (that push the smaller states in the region to balance against PRC), it seems Abe is trying his hardest to undermine Japan’s efforts to find non-US allies in the region. Before we had publicly clarified the coverage of the US-Japan mutual defense treaty over Senkaku earlier this year, we probably should’ve asked him to reconsider his decision on Yasukuni. I doubt it would’ve mattered though as Abe most likely would reject it out of hand. As someone earlier had noted, you might as well advise a gorilla to swim.
The United States has been trying to improve the ROK-Japan relations for decades without much success. In hindsight we probably should’ve taken Dokdo in 1945 (It’s just two pieces of rock) and used it for air and naval livefire exercises until it disappeared. Politicians in ROK often use nationalism for domestic consumption. The Japanese right wing have shamelessly done so for decades. However both should realize that using it in that manner is just like riding the proverbial tiger. Dismounting one without getting killed is the tough part of that exercise.
Fred:
You’re welcome and thanks for your kind words. Incidentally this appeared in WaPo yesterday. I’m not sure if you’ve already read it. Given the shrinking defense budget, I wonder about the wisdom of the Army reinventing the wheel when the Marine Corps posseses decades of institutional knowledge.
http://tinyurl.com/n2xpvle
NR
Instead of accepting the strategic and financial need for smaller ground forces the Army under Odierno evidently wants to fight the marines for budget. Disgusting. pl
Neil,
I had not read this one. It is an interesting article. I agree that there is no need to reinvent the wheel. It seems someone picked a cruiser to land on rather than an LPH solely to highlight the equipment differences. But isn’t staying power far more important than being able to quickly deploy a battalion or two? Certainly the army doesn’t need to be naval infantry and yet it has just as long a history of effective amphibious warfare as the Corps. (In the Pacific MacArthur’s campaigns come to mind).
I don’t see any of our potential rivals as having the sea or air lift to pose an invasion threat to Japan (which the article highlighted). The ongoing opposition to the Marines in Okinawa however, points out the need for language and cultural skills as an important factor in effective leadership for those deployed in the region. That seems to be a consistent failing within the Corps. (please correct me if I’m wrong with that perception).
As Pat pointed out in a few recent posts the Army is going to lose out in the budget battles, however that doesn’t mean the Marines ‘win’. It should mean that we really need to get the right force mix. We don’t need two armies, nor do we need a Marine force as big as it currently is. We are in for some interesting times.
Fred:
“I had not read this one. It is an interesting article. I agree that there is no need to reinvent the wheel. It seems someone picked a cruiser to land on rather than an LPH solely to highlight the equipment differences. But isn’t staying power far more important than being able to quickly deploy a battalion or two? Certainly the army doesn’t need to be naval infantry and yet it has just as long a history of effective amphibious warfare as the Corps. (In the Pacific MacArthur’s campaigns come to mind).”
As you know there’s a common saying, “The Marines win battles. The Army wins wars.” The primary mission of the Corps obviously is to gain a foothold in forcible entry operation in littoral areas. If you look at their division structure, it closely resembles a WWII-era Army infantry division plus organic close air support under the MAGTF doctrine. They are a light force by necessity. In addition the Army has sufficient strength in light force as well with airborne brigades. And given the investment, the Army will presumably retain Stryker brigades. Prepositioned stocks can also shorten the deployment chain of heavy force. To quote Heinlein, there ain’t no such thing as a free lunch in an era of austerity. The Army should achieve some measure of balance in the near term.
If Odierno, Brooks and other senior leaders try to duplicate functions in the Pacific, something has to give within the service budget. In all likelihood it’ll be at the cost of training for the heavy force (i.e., the reserve components after RIF). And given recent developments in robotics and directed energy weapons research, the Army must keep funding these despite the lack of near-term payoffs.
“I don’t see any of our potential rivals as having the sea or air lift to pose an invasion threat to Japan (which the article highlighted).”
I agree completely and that’s why IMHO the USFK is a “luxury” force which remains vulnerable for little strategic purpose. For decades the argument used to be that if the Korean peninsula were to be unified under hostile forces, it would become a “dagger” pointed at Japan. As you know a forcible entry operation is just the start of a military campaign. Without subsequent buildup of forces and all the necessary logistical support, a potential adversary would suffer a catastrophic defeat. Napoleon and Hitler at the height of their military power didn’t attempt to cross the English Channel.
“The ongoing opposition to the Marines in Okinawa however, points out the need for language and cultural skills as an important factor in effective leadership for those deployed in the region. That seems to be a consistent failing within the Corps. (please correct me if I’m wrong with that perception).”
The Marines certainly have had their share of problems after 1972. A lot of it was just unavoidable given the very limited landspace with sprawling population in Okinawa. I’d venture to guess that some of the same problems would have risen had Japanese SDF replaced the Marines. We’ve had a lot of friction in Korea as well. And on the whole I think the Army has had a pretty good understanding of the need to handle cultural sensitivities given our history.
Unlike the Marines, a USFK CG also wears two other hats with the United Nations Command and Combined Forces Command (It used to be three with Eighth US Army). This means he would have the wartime operational control of ROK units (It’s again scheduled to end in 2015. Now I’ll believe it when I see it as the Koreans are again asking us to delay it). The USFK has a long institutional memory at senior leadership level as far as cultural and political sensitivities are concerned. And the USFK senior leadership used to be quite impressive (Michaelis, Stillwell, Vessey, Wickham, Livsey, Luck, Menetrey, etc).
Still when you’re dealing with a vast majority of kids who are first-termers (ROK has never been a station of choice) it’s just very hard to keep a lid on things. With junior enlisted we would get maybe good six months out of them. For the first 3mos they’d be trying to figure out how to stop their heads from spinning. And for the last 3mos they’d usually think like short-timers. At least among line units the pace used to be quite frenetic. We’ll see what happens when they finally start to rotate units in Korea.